Denis Blanchette

[Committees of the House, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for his speech.

We have been in politics for years now and we have seen this problem persist, insofar as we are unable to be consistent. People are prepared to make major sacrifices for us. When they are active in the army, we support them. However, as soon as they leave the system and they become veterans, suddenly everything becomes difficult, as if in return for their full commitment, we are giving them only a partial and inadequate commitment. It is absolutely deplorable.

I know that my colleague had 20 minutes to talk, but he also told us that he did not have enough time to explain the entire dynamic of this issue. I would like to give him the opportunity to tell us about one or two items he did not have time to address and that would help paint a more complete picture of veterans' needs.

[Quebec Bridge, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, an entire region is sick of what is and is not happening at present.

The Quebec Bridge is at risk if we allow rust to erode the structure. The minister's job is to pick up the telephone and come to an agreement with CN's boss. It is not complicated.

The farce has gone on long enough. It is time to put a coat of paint on the Quebec Bridge and it is time for the minister to do his job.

Will the minister reach an agreement with CN, or is he actually saying that the railway companies can do whatever they want?

[Quebec Bridge, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the mayors of Lévis and Quebec City held a joint press conference yesterday to denounce the disgraceful state of the Quebec Bridge. Like the NDP, they are calling on people to mobilize in support of repairs to the bridge.

Unfortunately, the federal government is spending more time and money on legal battles with CN than on its efforts to maintain the bridge.

Will the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs pledge today to set aside the legal battle and find a long-term solution by the end of the year?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, October 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.

I do not know if my colleague paid attention to whether he mentioned the budget, but I can tell him that he did not. Was he out of order? Not at all. That is what is so ridiculous about these mammoth bills. He kept his comments relevant to the bill, but he did not even talk about the budget.

How is that possible? Everything he talked about deserved to be in a separate bill. Moreover, there are dozens more examples like that.

One thing that worried me in my colleague's speech was the regulatory process that seems to be emerging. The government appears to be creating a framework, but no one knows how it will work. All we know is that it will be through a regulatory process. One day we will find out; we do not know when. Maybe we will find out when there is some kind of abuse.

Could my colleague speak to that?

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, October 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

One thing always surprises me. Yes, it is good to diversify markets. However, a question came to mind while I was listening to my colleague speak.

Before he even knew what agreement he was dealing with, he said he supported it. He did not really look at the content of the agreement. Furthermore, he is completely surprised that the NDP is supporting a free trade agreement. As we in the NDP are always reminding this House, we have a very structured approach for determining whether or not an agreement is good for Canada.

Given that we have such a structured approach and that one aspect of it involves ensuring that the partner's economy has significant or strategic value to Canada's economy, would he agree that thinking in these terms could help us to improve our trade?

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, October 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He identified many important aspects of free trade agreements, particularly one with Korea, a society that has decided to focus on high tech.

Unfortunately, there is a downside. I am not sure we are in the same league as Korea when it comes to that. I would like my colleague to comment further on that.

Are we in a position to act fast so that we too can trade value-adds rather than just raw resources for high tech? What are his thoughts on that?

[Quebec Bridge, October 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the minister what the Prime Minister had to say to the Quebec City chamber of commerce in the middle of the election campaign in December 2005. At the time, the Prime Minister asked the people of Quebec to vote for him in order to take the paintbrush from the Liberal transport minister's hands. Nine years later, still no paintbrush.

The Quebec Bridge, one of the jewels of our capital, is still rusting away. When will the minister take responsibility and have the bridge repainted?

[Quebec Bridge, October 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Lévis—Bellechasse and Minister of Public Safety continues to hope that CN will repaint the Quebec Bridge. However, the Superior Court just ruled in favour of CN, which will not have to finish painting the bridge. This legal battle cost taxpayers $1 million, and the bridge is still not painted.

Will the minister stop hiding behind the courts and have this bridge repainted once and for all?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very relevant question. It connects to the idea behind my speech, which is that humanitarian aid is not an end in itself, but the beginning of something else.

What happens when groups like Daesh, for example, take control of a territory? They organize services. What we do is relieve hunger. There is something we can learn from that, not only to help relieve hunger, but also to help these people have a better life one day.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Clearly, once again, this question is strictly based on the rationale for a military intervention. Throughout my speech, I have said that we must go beyond armed intervention.

One of the questions I had no time to address in my speech is the following: how is this tiny group—because that is what it is—so wealthy, and why has no real effort been made to starve it financially?

Just last week, Secretary of State John Kerry said how important it was to eliminate the group's source of funding. What I am saying once again is that, if we want to root out this evil, we need to look at the big picture, not just at a small specific part of the problem that would call for a targeted intervention, which is already expected to fail.